Legend500

The problems on Saturday are fairly easy to correct. 1) Get Delgado some stilts. 2) Move the goalposts about 5 meters to the right (looking from behind).

The situation reminds me to a large extent of what happened in the Gaza Strip. The Bush Administration (rightly) supported the democratization of the area, but then condemned the democratic process because people we didn't like got elected. Same thing has happened here. Obama rightly supported the overthrow of dictatorial regimes, and now some people are criticizing his support of democracy in Libya, Egypt Tunisia and Yemen because it turns out that they might not support everything that we do. There's no excuse for the violation of sovereignty which the death of Ambassador Stevens represents. The proper response, however, is not war unless one supports the notion that the United States should operate as an imperial power (and is willing to pay the taxes associated with the same). Our last attempt to play at empire ended laughably in Iraq - mainly because the initial proponents of that action failed to actually support it when the going got tough (mainly by refusing to pay for it). So what should happen? It should be left up to the local authorities to conduct their investigations and turn over the perpetrators of these acts to the United States for trial and punishment (and not indefinite detention as is the case in Guantanamo). Unlike the vast majority of these Mohammedan savages, we are an adult nation of laws, and should comport ourselves as such.

If you forget about the WAC (with Idaho's performance) and the MAC (Ohio's been great, but UMass has been so.very.terrible.) I think there's a point.

There may have been some very preliminary discussions about hockey , but the problems come in three areas. First, and as a surprise to those outside the sport, hockey is expensive compared to other sports, and when you add the costs of renting ice for practice and games (the Pit is not convertible, games would be at Starscenter Frisco) - it ends up being prohibitive. Second, and no surprise here - baseball is a priority. Third, travel will be a problem. The only team we'd be familiar with is Denver, and we would be looking at joining the NCHC - to be ritually killed on a weekly basis. The "close" teams would be Denver, Colorado College and Nebraska-Omaha. However, there are a few good reasons to join. Hockey is doing will in the DFW market even with the Stars in a rough patch, it provides a unique yet news-worthy sport to the market and the cost of adding a women's team would be minimal in addition to the men's. The most interesting reason is that we're starting to see Dallas-area players have an impact in the college and AHL ranks. One of the biggest shocks in the last few years was having a native Texan lead the NCAA in goals - Colgate University and Dallas Jesuit alum Austin Smith, who will probably join the Dallas Stars next season.

We need to do something about our pregame. The halftime show is peerless, but as a guy who tries to get to each FBS team in Texas during the season - we're getting our butts handed to us by the likes of UTEP (whose music school consists of a conjunto band behind the Montana Chico's Tacos), TCU (who, like UH and A&M, actually have the pride to play the state's anthem at the beginning of the game) and Texas State (who always have a featured twirler ).

Actually, the BCS system does look back and take note of who played a FCS team. All 6 component polls grade an FCS win as a "draw" for the team. Now, if you're Alabama, you play plenty of games that can make up for that. If you're North Texas or SMU looking at the BCS system this year of the selection system in 2 years, playing an FCS could very well keep you out of championship (or high-end bowl) play at the end of the year. For the selection committee especially, a win over Idaho or UTSA will be much more impressive than one over Northeastern Rhode Island College of Mines and will make a difference at the end of the year. And this is totally fine. There's plenty of low-end FBS teams which we can beat without having to play Taylor Swift School for the Deaf. ...and there's no reason why you can't get the same momentum by beating up on someone your own size, unless you're afraid of Idaho and NMSU - which it seems like most of our fans are. As for Joe Fan's opinion, we don't exist for him anyway, and beating Prime Prep certainly won't help that. Still haven't seen why the risk of losing to Incarnate Word is such a good thing to take on....

As a stratagem for gaining an early, if meaningless, win which will put butts-in-seats and generates a good storyline, it's absolutely the right thing to do. Texas Southern brought a band, dancers and a decent away crowd which is more than we can say for many Sun Belt - and even Mt. USA - teams. That being said, it's killing the sport, is horrible for competition and is just not very sporting. An 11-1 record is meaningless if one of those wins comes against Little Sisters of the Poor - it's really just a 10-1 record. Play (and beat) a team which is actually on your level. It also deprives our team of a game against a minimally-competent opponent, making both fans and coaches wait until up-to a month into the season before we know whether our team is "good" or not. Finally, it's a big risk - ask the State of Colorado, for relatively minimal reward. I'm sure UTSA would much rather have played us then TAMUC. If our team needs to schedule FCS teams to get good attendance and a good shot at a win, we need to join a conference which offers us those opportunities on a weekly basis - the Southland.

OK. We're talking about science, and the sciences, whether hard or soft, require proof. Since I gather that the manner in which I actually provided facts to support my positions seems to have eluded some, I'll show you the problem I have with the global warming conspiracy theorists. Here's just one example:

First a preface, then some responses. Climate science, by its nature, will always be uncertain. That's why there's so much fluidity in the specific numbers in this debate, and why your local meteorologist has such a hellish time putting together an accurate forecast for more than 12 hours out. In this, climatology and meteorology share a great deal with the "softer" sciences such as psychology, politics and sociology. All are statistics-based, and thus cannot rely on the solid totems which the simpler, less creative sciences such as chemistry, physics or biology can rely. The extent to which humans are causing the problem is rightfully up for debate, but anyone who believes that we can produce tons of CO2 every second, spread it around the world, and it will have no impact simply defies all logic on the matter. What goes in (or up) must come out. Now, as far as political motivations go, they should be divorced from this matter, on both sides. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, so we must look past it to the facts at hand. Finally, a clarification is in order. When these problems first came to light, it was termed "global warming" simply because that was the first apparent effect. Scientists now know that this was incredibly short-sighted, and that "climate change" is a better description of the term. Some places will get hotter, some colder. Some will get less rain, some will get more. But what will be evident is that the extremes will become "more extreme." That's where the discussion lies, not in whether or not it's "hot enough for ya" this year. And yet here you are, berating someone for opposing the absolute fact that nuclear energy must be a part of our solution to the current climate change" problem (which it is, get over it hippies), rightly praising the need for the free market to be involved in the solution, and then stating that the government should have a limited role in bringing other types of energy, such as nuclear to the core. Big flaw in your argument is that you've clearly never heard of the billion-dollar bailout called the Price-Anderson Nuclear Indemnity Act (where big government expressly takes over the risk of nuclear sites in order to allow them to be built) or the fact that nuclear energy, due tot he expense of building plants, is not competitive with other types of energy without massive federal bond guarantees through entities such as the Tennessee Valley Authority. Should nuclear play a huge role in lowering emissions? Absolutely, and even Kyoto acknowledged this. Can nuclear do that without government support? No. Full stop. Who has done the most to support the development of nuclear power of late? Barack Obama. Absolutely true - except for the fact that this "peak" should be cooling the earth more, not warming it. As far as the period between March 2011- May 2011? "For March–May 2011, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above average—also the 10th warmest March–May on record." Scientists would concede as much. Climatology is exceedingly difficult to predict, and a lot of the work fails to satisfy the 95% accuracy requirement found in the social sciences. But what about global warming (which, as noted, is simply one symptom of the disease)? Just taking the absolute numbers, the temperatures over the last 20 years fall in-between a 3 and 5 range. What does that mean? Again, just looking at the numbers, there is only between a 0.27% and a 0.0000684% of the temperature anomalies being caused by random chance. Call me crazy, but if it's between two bets, one with a 99.9999426% chance of paying and the other with a 0.0000684% chance, I know which bet I'd take. As far as the confirmation bias you point out, I first have to counter that if you believe that almost every climate study in the last 20-odd years has been afflicted by the same bias without it being detected, I suggest you reconsider. Such conspiracies (for that is what they are) are impossible to keep secret, are obvious to even jaded minds, and most importantly, are never present. Humans just aren't capable of that level of consistent deception. An even better counter is the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Report, commissioned and paid for by the brothers Koch. If you believe that the Kochs told Berkeley to confirm that global warming exists and that it must be stopped, then I have lakefront property on Mars I think you would be interested in. I hope you don't go to the doctor, then. I'd find it funny if a patient stated that they don't respect my expertise in the field and that they wanted every doctor in the world to concur on their diagnosis of a bloody nose. These people are experts for a reason, and are entitled to deference in their fields of expertise. Neither you nor I are at all qualified to be having such a discussion, but unlike your assertions, mine are backed by the people who actually do this for a living. Show some respect if nothing else. ...and scientists rightly changed their "beliefs" when thy were proven to be wrong. The availability of new date showed previous beliefs to be wrong and continually confirmed a new paradigm. That's what happened from the global cooling debacle of the 70's to now. The old science was disproves, the new is continually confirmed. Unlike religion and politics, science doesn't care if its basic beliefs are challenged, in fact it relishes it. People who don't understand the distinction are simply to obstinate to be worthy of civilized discourse. Oh, and if 97%-98% isn't a enough of a consensus on the overall truth of the matter (taking your important qualifications into account, the scientists involved have dismissed them and still concur that climate change is happening), then what do you require? Fortunately for your decision, there's only about 3 other options that you could have.

Well, this is what I get for leaving the topic alone for a day... As far as employment, I would. Look, as far as employment prospects go, St. Mary's is doing something better than everyone else - making lawyers. That's what law schools do. If people are going for other reasons, great, but it's the job of law schools to make lawyers, not academics or businessmen. Now, it seems like you're equating Big Law jobs with being "good" jobs. If you're interested in spending your career becoming the legal equivalent of a Vice-President of Office Supplies, that's probably true. But if we're talking paying off debts, we know that its a lot harder to pay them off without a job than it is with one. You're also pretty clearly in the pre-1L daze of being happy that you ended up at UH. That's great - family went there, and aside from building a library underground in a hurricane-prone swamp, it's a great place. But don't kid yourself - unless you have personal connections in this market, there's really very little distance between the top and bottom schools. The legal profession is one where its up to you to take advantage of what you're given, not rest on your laurels because you went to the second-best law school south of I-10. Now, is there an over-saturation of lawyers? Not unless you mean that it's hard to find the mythical 160k job anymore. Sure, pay is down and jobs are down, but that's a risk you take in any line of work - just ask travel agents. The fact that kids are paying hundreds of thousands thinking that they can make it back, well - you'll learn this in the first week - caveat emptor. Law school is not about being guaranteed a job. It's about being given an opportunity to enter an exclusive club. Some people get in and just sit there, some become Supreme Court justices, It's up to you to determine which one you'll be. Could not have said it better myself, and heck, I tried. I'll play you're game (while reminding you of my arguments about what a good job is, supra, and also reminding you that there are second-year solos making 100k and second year BigLaw lawyers making 10k). In fact, there's a point I should stress - being in a firm of 250 lawyers is absolutely no guarantee that you're making more than small firm or solo per billable hour. But OK, i'll bite and play on your turf - let's look at lawschooltransparency.com's employment scores: Baylor 68.8% Texas 68.1% St. Mary's 66.7% Southern Methodist 61.4% Texas Tech 60.5% South Texas 59.2% Houston 58% Texas Wesleyan 39.5% Texas Southern 35% So although the order changes a bit, the groupings remain the same as the ABA's study: the three discernible "groups" of schools - 1) BU, UT and StMU, 2) SMU, TTU, SoTX, UH 3) TWU and TSU. In sum, your own sources deny your argument. Now as far as GL2Greatness is concerned, any good argument needs to be broken down a bit... For everyone's reference, you're referring to this line in the Authorization Bill (SB956): "This Act takes effect only if a specific appropriation for the implementation of the Act is provided in a general appropriations act..." Actually, the "fund or die provision" in SB 956, Section 6 was satisfied by a 5 million dollar appropriation in 2009 (the LBB's Supplemental to SB1). Now that it's satisfied, the funding is no longer voted on by the legislature separately, but becomes part of the omnibus system requests presented in the higher education funding bill. Thus, UNTDLS is entitled to "formula funding" under the Education Code 61.003 and will simply be allotted a share of the standard funding amount UNTS gets - a situation which the enrolled bill itself notes. If you want to look it up, it's Section 105.502©(1-2). So the THECB couldn't block this and the other systems won't get involved, you say? Well, that's exactly what happened last time. from The Eagle: "A&M’s last effort to offer a law degree came in the 1990s, when it entered into a partnership with the South Texas College of Law in Houston. ...The Higher Education Coordinating Board blocked that plan, saying it was concerned that the state would eventually end up having to fund the school. But A&M officials also perceived that politics were involved in the decision. Ray Bowen, who was A&M president at the time, said supporters of the University of Houston Law Center opposed the idea." It will happen again. Like UNT, A&M will have to get through an authorization bill and a funding bill in two sessions in order to fund it, unless A&M intends this to be a private law school. They won't under the current budgetary regime. Good thing UNT already did. But most lawyers aren't employed by BigLaw - most are small firm. Those firms very much care whether they hire someone who knows the system and the people in Dallas County over Tarrant Count. Don't think that such trivial regionalisms matter? Go walk into a Tarrant County court with a "I love Democratic judges" shirt from the Dallas Democratic Party. The legal market is bad, but I defy you to find one person who thinks that the situation is nearly as bad in Texas as elsewhere in the nation. Plus, law is unusual in that if you didn't go to one of the "T10" schools, location matters just as much as reputation. Any firm in Texas would have to be crazy to hire a Notre Dame grad over, say, a Houston grad. UNT's medical school will start issuing MDs in the next two years. OK, a lot of "fleeting" misunderstandings in one area, but I'll give it a go. 1) People in 1994 said the same thing - "the profession is crowded and will never get better." Ten years later, we had the strongest market in the history of the profession. Law, like all economies, goes in cycles. Even now, applications to law schools are massively down (well below replacement for a growing country), and baby-boomer lawyers continue to get older. There's you're future "not enough lawyers" headline in the WSJ taking shape now. In fact, the situation in 1994 was much worse than it is now. 2) Legal software has cost some jobs, but they're on the lower end of the scale, and not nearly as disruptive as earlier technologies were. You think electronic discovery has led to lost jobs? Does anyone remember when the copier came out? Or when telephonic hearings limited the need for local counsel? 3) If you're outsourcing legal work, you better check with Ethics. In most cases, letting someone in Punjab (who is not a member of your firm) have access to confidential information and allowing them to draft pleadings is begging for a malpractice campaign. Plus, Indian offshoring cannibalizes work being done by computers now anyway. In short, all that man in Punjab is doing is replacing a HotDocs or Westlaw subscription - not a living, breathing attorney at a desk. 4) THECB then went on to note that adding those extra seats would cause more problems in the long term than it's worth. First, the schools probably don't want to add those seats. Second, more seats means lower quality, usually. Better to have 10 200-student schools than 1 2000 student school. Finally, Texas is in a unique position. Almost none of the new schools send people to Texas to practice, and even if they did these attorneys have to spend years catching up on Texas law, re-taking the bar and then hoping to find a job in a market that vastly prefers local kids. Also, Texans are best served legally by other Texans educated in Texas. Ask a New Mexican about Oil & Gas law, or an Oklahoman about the TCPA, and you can spot the difference immediately. Texas has not opened a new law school since Texas Wesleyan did 20-some-odd years ago, and in that time, Texas has added nearly 10 million people to its population. It's time to get back on track. Good luck, and don't worry. Have you heard about the legal "depression" of the early 90's? No? That's because it was followed by a much bigger boom. Same thing happened in the 60's, 50's, 30's... and it will happen again. Now's the exact time to open a new school. Why? Think markets, and think Apogee. You don't buy high and sell low. Same with any other "investment". The best time to build something is when it's cheap and nobody sees a need for it, because by the time the market rolls around again, you'll be up and running with something which cost a fraction of what it would have cost during the "good years". Now as far as expanding the present schools - that's a non-starter for the reasons I listed above, but two quick points: 1) who says the schools want to expand? At a certain point, the infrastructure required exceeds the available capacity. 2) Larger classes = lower achievement. Just ask our friends at Thomas Cooley. Whew. So in sum, UNT just has to keep its head down and keep going. Our problems in the past came from running away whenever things seemed to be getting difficult. Now's the time to stand up and be counted. Now's the time to Believe in the Mean Green. Or Blue Jaguars.

There's a huge assumption here that the THECB (Higher Education Coordinating Board) is actually going to approve this. The last time UNT tried to buy TWU Law and A&M tried to buy South Texas, it got shot down at that stage because the Attorney General essentially decided that public universities can't use taxpayer money to buy private schools. A&M's tried to contract around it - but I think it's pretty transparent. We're also forgetting that there is an inter-system rivalry at play here - one which will play out at the THECB and in the legislature. It's an opening salvo in the biennial battle for money and influence at the legislature - and this makes it pretty clear the the lines are going to be A&M and UH vs. UT, UNT and TTU. No way that those three systems are going to let it happen without a fight, and the only reason UH is on board is because A&M didn't try to buy South Texas again. UNTLaw is mostly unaffected by this change. Why? Well, first the school has met all requirements to start and no further approval is needed from the state. Second, A&M Wesleyan would be a much bigger threat to Texas Tech than it would be to UNT. It's not like A&M will be massively expanding the school, it just means that a major advantage Tech had over Wesleyan (cost) will soon be gone. Third, nothing really changes - the whole "only city without a public law school" was really just marketing lingo to get it approved, and is pretty meaningless after the fact. Fourth, just because A&M is running the show (assuming it goes through) doesn't mean that the school will be any better. Anybody who picks their law school based on their undergraduate reputation is in for a world of hurt. Fifth, UNTLaw is still in downtown Dallas. That remains a massive advantage over everyone but Texas and South Texas. There's plenty of other reasons to be unconcerned, but 5 is enough to start. As far as the legal industry itself is concerned: the situation in Texas is not as bad as it is elsewhere in the nation. There's a whole bunch of people complaining because they thought that going to a "top-tier" school (there are none in Texas, as top tier really only means a small list of 14 schools, none closer than Chicago) guarantees them money and success. That used to seem logical, until the ABA released the first legal employment numbers for all law schools. For people who are planning on going to law school, these are the most important numbers to consider (to a lesser extent, clerkships, partners, journal citation and bar pass rates should also be considered). If someone is dumb enough to rely on US News's numbers, they shouldn't be in law school to begin with - they should consider a more simplistic profession - like animal husbandry or medicine . So what schools actually produce employable lawyers? Here's the ABA's list. St. Mary's 78.31% Baylor 70.06% Texas - Austin 69.90% South Texas 64.43% Texas Tech 63.50% Vanderbilt Western University (SMU) 63.24% Houston 60.14% Texas Southern 53.37% Wesleyan 48.88% Shocked the heck outta me, but any lawyer knows that it's not who gets the highest score on the bar that becomes the best lawyer, its the guy who knows what hands to shake. So congrats to the Aggies if they do get this through - they've just become the worst public law school in the state - assuming you actually want to be a lawyer when you graduate.

The current situation in the Big East - everybody but the new kids looking for an exit, Notre Dame's uncertain situation (they may have to join a conference to get access to the playoff), the basketball/football division - has everything on hold for now. With no BCS left, the case for Boise and SDSU moving has gotten a great deal weaker,too. Grab your popcorn.

The way they're reacting, you'd think that they had just been invited to the Lone Star Conference. Which may not be so bad an idea - if I was Texas State or @San Antonio, I'd be worried about Incarnate Word beating us.

yyz28 As for the "hypocrisy" here - there is a good reason for their handling of these situations differently. Social security fraud is a problem for which the government has found a solution, but voter fraud is not a problem. According to the Republican National Lawyer's Association, there has been only 1 prosecution for vote fraud in Texas worth mentioning since 2004 - and even then it was a violation which an ID would not have stopped. Of course it shouldn't be a shock that there's hypocrisy in politics. What is a shock is that people blame anyone but themselves. Our politicians are hypocritical because we've asked them to be. An example: ...from the left: The voters want a President who will not "bail out" corporations, but make exceptions form GM or green energy companies. ...from the right: The voters want a president who wants to keep government from interfering in religion, contracts or personal rights, but make exceptions for gay marriage or marijuana. In short, don't complain about hypocritical politicians - we asked for them.

Exactly. Let's recall that the big issue will be an issue over the remit of the Commerce Clause, and that the court's most conservative justices have gleefully expanded the Clause to cover pretty much whatever the government wants it to. Most recent example: a guy growing a small crop in California fell under Federal law because that small crop might effect the price of the good nationwide.

Of course federal law trumps state law. However, you're forgetting the effects of enforcement nullification. What is that? Well, when a state - hypothetically, the state of Lone Star -passes a law decriminalizing or allowing medical use of marijuana, the Federal government loses the ability to adequately enforce it's laws. That's one of the beauties of our Federalist system. Although the Feds can still carry out raids with local assistance, no local information is getting to the federal level, making enforcement, aside from a few showy raids, impossible. Here's an example: Let's say I run Pot is Us in the city of Town, County of Franklin, State of Lone Star. Does the local cop report my operation which he sees 3 times a day? No. The county sheriff? No. The DA or legislators? As anyone who is familiar with lawyers and drug use would know, hell no. What about the state licensing authority or it's tax department. All still no. So here's the rub: as long as I stay too small to ignore on a national level, or as long as I'm not horribly unlucky to be the 1 producer out of 10,000 raided, I'm fine. Now, here's the argumentative part. First, anyone who supports the outcome in Raich is not a conservative. What allows me to say that? Because that case took theabuse of the Commerce Clause to its maximum possible extent, and conservatives hate the Commerce Clause more than they hate Obama. Second, the argument that pot is bad because it kills people is specious at best. Further the argument that pot kills as many people as alcohol is an argument supporting the prohibition of alcohol, not the prohibition of pot. Guns, hamburgers, legal drugs, alcohol, tobacco and cars all killed more people than illegal drugs, and I sure don't want any of those things banned. Third, pot's status as an illegal drug kills far more people than pot itself. Altria and other companies, if allowed to buy and sell pot, would not engage in the sort of wholesale bloodletting of the type that is happening in Mexico right now. Fourth, coming from a strict constructionist constitutional view, you have a right to use pot. Courts would not Follow this logic - yet - but any conservative reading of the Constitution makes it clear. The fact that no right to use pot is mentioned doesn't, mean the right does not exist (9th Amend), states are granted the authority to regulate drugs, not the federal government (10th) , and one's right to liberty outweighs the government's interests in banning something it simply doesn't like ( Lawrence v. Texas, 14th).

Market is first, competitiveness second, attendance somewhere in the double digits. I think I'd take Incarnate Word, Trinity or St. Mary's over UTSA. Nothing against UTSA, but all the other teams mentioned can actually beat Division 3 teams, even if St. Mary's last did the equivalent in 1916. UTSA would have to schedule an NAIA team to get a guaranteed win.

As long as we don't end up in the Big-East-of-the-Pacific, I'll be happy. The Sun Belt has been and continues to be good to us, and the Alliance would be a good move as well. I'm all for the quiet approach here. Unlike many, I don't presume to know how to do RV's job.

If I'm still in the CUSA, a merger with the Sun Belt is starting to look a lot better - from both a financial and competitive standpoint - than a merger with the Mountain West.

Beer: Normal : Shiner Bock Fancy: Delirium Noel Mixed Drinks: Depends on the mood. One's for experimentation, one for a sweet tooth, one is a gentleman's beverage, one is for a celebration during college, and one for a celebration after college. Dr. Peri's Dirty Black Russian 6 parts Dr. Pepper 5p Vanilla Vodka 2p Kahula Flying Grasshopper 1p Creme de Menthe 1p Creme de Cacao 1p Vodka Bourbon Sidecar 8p Bourbon 2p Cointreau 1p Lemon Juice Three Wise Men on a Cold Mexican Night 3p Jack Daniels 3p Jim Beam 3p Johnny Walker 3p Vodka 3p Gold/Oro Tequila *&(@ You, Direct Loans 9p Johnny Walker Blue, served neat

Having attended the UTEP - Rice game in Houston this weekend, I get the feeling that the CUSA enforces a maximum attendance of 12,000 and a minimum reporting number of 20,000. There were absolutely not more than 7500 there.

I mentioned a few months ago that SMU's groveling to the Big XII-II-I-?+I was gonna make them pretty well hated in the CUSA, and will deprive them of the power to "block" us if the issue comes up. I don't think that SMU would do it anyway, but it's good to know Banowsky has had enough, too. Don't think this means that SMU is going to the Big East yet, more that CUSA is tired of SMU sleeping with everyone who will lower their standards.

It reeks of desperation - especially desperation to make sure TCU stays put. SMU brings decent, Syracuse-level football, but a small market, horrible attendance (was at Amon G. Carter for the Skillet, and if only about 3,000 Pony fans travel for that game, imagine how many will be in Connecticut), no basketball worth mentioning, and is barely a research university. I have to thing that the Big East already went asking to Houston and got a stern no.

Excellent and true article - and an explanation of the difficulty of getting noticed in such a vibrant market. I'd add a few more points, though: - Between TCU, UNT and occasionally UTA, you've got great college basketball. - Long suffering FC Dallas went to the finals last year, and is in line to do it again - In addition to three bowls, you also have a huge set of big rivalry games played here - from the Red River Shootout to Arkansas-A&M to the Iron Skillet and of course most importantly, the Safeway Bowl (2014 baby!) - DFW has hosted two MLS finals, the biggest under-18 football (soccer) competition in the nation and the World Cup - The FCS Championship game